Wong Fei Hung vs Wikipedia

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/27/2010 10:42pm

Originally Posted by Uncle Skippy

The accuracy of the content is separate from the delivery system (Wikipedia). If the delivery system is flawed, then the summaries of the content are jeopardized.

Jeopardized is not the same as dismissable. I rest my case...for tonight.

ED

**Nicko1** · Posted On: 6/27/2010 10:59pm

Originally Posted by Earth Dragon

I understand a lot of you have Wikipedia bias, probably because some subject you hold dear is held hostage.

As usual, you understand nothing.

Skippy just specifically said why Wikipedia is not an accurate source and you immediately started to speculate as to his "real" reasons. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is why no reputable institution will allow you to use it as a reference. It is true that it can be used as a means of finding reliable sources, but that is not the same thing as being a reliable source.

But this is a common tactic for you isn't it? Someone points out that you don't know what you are talking about, so you start talking about something else and try to pretend that is what you were talking about all along. Oh how clever. Now you shall surely bask in the adulation of us all. What a fucking original.

Love and respek

No one here wants your love. You have not shown respect, nor behaved in a manner that would deserve respect. Take your passive-agressive idiocy elsewhere.

**Uncle Skippy** · Posted On: 6/27/2010 11:00pm

Originally Posted by Earth Dragon

Jeopardized is not the same as dismissable. I rest my case...for tonight.

In the search for reliable sources, would you choose one whose content is jeopardized by the collection and presentation process?

If you do, I hope I never cite one of your papers.

And with that, I'll bring my involvement in this thread to an end. It has been fun restating my position 42 different ways in hopes that it will get through. Alas, it has not.

8====================D~~US

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/27/2010 11:25pm

Originally Posted by Nicko1

As usual, you understand nothing.

Skippy just specifically said why Wikipedia is not an accurate source

I'm sorry, he "specifically said"? Not an accurate source? Go read the page on quantum entanglement and point to me what is inaccurate. Or a thousand other pages for that matter. Please do.

Or keep riding the dicks of other people. It's shameful.

ED

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/27/2010 11:31pm

Originally Posted by Uncle Skippy

In the search for reliable sources, would you choose one whose content is jeopardized by the collection and presentation process?

If you do, I hope I never cite one of your papers.

And with that, I'll bring my involvement in this thread to an end. It has been fun restating my position 42 different ways in hopes that it will get through. Alas, it has not.

8====================D~~US

Lol...just think about what you're suggesting...."reliable sources" Wiki is a reliable source and it isn't. A library is a reliable source and it isn't. So are history texts, peer reviewed studies of the past (like the ones that showed tobacco or microwaves aren't killing people), and so on. I hope you do one day cite one of my papers (some are public), I put a lot of effort into them.

Listen..I can point you to peer reviewed, scholarly works from the 1930s and 40s on eugenics, and they have ALL the proper dressing. Those works were used to justify the murder of millions. There are countless Wikipedia articles that are more based in fact than those were, at the time.

ED

**Rivington** · Posted On: 6/27/2010 11:45pm

Originally Posted by Earth Dragon

The remains that if you choose 100 random articles in Wikipedia on MAJOR subjects (not fringe things, conspiracy theories, or even Martial Arts)

Oh, so when you asked us to check out random articles, you meant not random.

The truth is often that the Wiki page is 100% accurate, but you'd need to leave the Internet to actually find some of the terms and things written about there, etc.

Oh, so you actually disagree with the Nature article, which counted "critical omissions" as an error.

**Rivington** · Posted On: 6/27/2010 11:49pm

Amusingly, the quantum entanglement article contains this text—the rough equivalent of "incomplete, revise and resubmit" written on the margins of a term paper:

This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (January 2009)

**XXIV** · Posted On: 6/28/2010 12:11am

This thread was a bit more fun when it was about my Si-Tai-Tai-Tai-Gung's alleged photo and less about Wikibitchin'.

The message in short is to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Most of my college professors don't allow it as a cited source, so take that for what it's worth. Great place for some quick information or a quick synopsis, but definitely needs other source fact checking.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/28/2010 12:15am

Originally Posted by Rivington

Amusingly, the quantum entanglement article contains this text—the rough equivalent of "incomplete, revise and resubmit" written on the margins of a term paper:

This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (January 2009)

"Rough equivalent". We see what you did there, trying to discredit the indiscreditable. Try to disprove the CONTENT dude.

nice try tho,

smooch,

Edit: I mean attempt to disprove the math nub. Seriously

ED

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 6/28/2010 12:18am

Originally Posted by XXIV

This thread was a bit more fun when it was about my Si-Tai-Tai-Tai-Gung's alleged photo and less about Wikibitchin'.

The message in short is to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Most of my college professors don't allow it as a cited source, so take that for what it's worth. Great place for some quick information or a quick synopsis, but definitely needs other source fact checking.

some actual wisdom.

Now read this bitches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

:owneddanc

-ED